Jesus was made flesh so he could suffer with humans.Since Christ was nailed to a cross, I would have to conclude that a God can suffer. Your opinion?
If Jesus was God - and the Trinity idea says that he was - then if Jesus suffered then a God suffered.Since Christ was nailed to a cross, I would have to conclude that a God can suffer. Your opinion?
There is no "undo" on sin. No expiry date, no statute of limitation.Jesus definatly suffered a painful death, but only to undo sin.
Serious question: What do Old/New Testament believers think about Roman and Greek Gods?All the old gods - long before Jesus - could, and often did.
Not to mention Aztec, Inca, Mayan, the several North American divine(ish) families, the Chinese, Japanese, Indian, multitude of African, Indonesian; the pagan gods of Celtic, Nordic and Frankish Europe; the wild nomadic deities of the Russian and Mongolian highlands .... and the ancestors of their own deity: the Egyptian, Babylonian and Sumerian pantheons.Serious question: What do Old/New Testament believers think about Roman and Greek Gods?
Why? He's the son of the god of the Israel - a very small noise by global standards. A lot of other gods had children, some full deities, more half-human.In fact, isn't the OP an oxymoron? If one grants that Christ is the son of God, that goes hand-in-hand with their being only the one true God.
Legitimately.So, how can one ask about "a" God - as opposed to "the" God?
Because the OP grants that Jesus is (some appendage of) God. Therefore the OP adheres to the One True God tenet. So why would the OP then ask about whether "a" God can suffer - as opposed to simply "God"? Why would the OP ask whether fake gods can suffer?Why?In fact, isn't the OP an oxymoron?
So, if Jesus got indigestion, would a God feel it too?Since Christ was nailed to a cross, I would have to conclude that a God can suffer. Your opinion?
I think you're reading in all the Christian assertions. He did not state them.Because the OP grants that Jesus is (some appendage of) Why would the OP ask whether fake gods can suffer?
A single capital G does not necessarily posit that Christ is some part of a god, rather than a god in his own right. It does not explicitly preclude other gods, nor consider them fake, and does not deny the possibility that they, too, could have 'appendages' in the incarnate world.Since Christ was nailed to a cross, I would have to conclude that a God can suffer. Your opinion?
They are implicit - in the mention of God feeling Jesus' suffering.I think you're reading in all the Christian assertions. He did not state them.
They are if you want them to be. That is, if you are familiar with the whole exclusively Christian interpretation of what s god is, and also take that as the given and only possible context.They are implicit - in the mention of God feeling Jesus' suffering.
I'm not disputing their relationship.Jesus suffered and died on the cross. The only connection that could possibly have to the topic about God suffering is if Jesus really is, for the sake of the argument, a part of God. The same God that suffers no other gods.
How? Not mentioning other gods by name doesn't exclude them from consideration. If I said:They are mutually-exclusive.
It would be valid because, in granting Horus and Osiris, one is also granting a pantheon of gods. Therefore, "a" god can suffer."Since Horus was injured and Osiris was murdered, I would have to conclude that a God can suffer."
It would be valid, without excluding Jesus, Eros, Mithra or any other deity who might also suffer and die.
If you accept the Christian context as the only possible one. I don't.It would be valid because, in granting Horus and Osiris, one is also granting a pantheon of gods. Therefore, "a" god can suffer.
To grant the God of Jesus, one grants all gods but one are false gods.
The analogue would be more like:It would be like my saying can a Jeeves play the piano? There is only one Jeeves.
I ask Can Jeeves play the piano.